anton zuykov

About

Username
anton zuykov
Joined
Visits
82
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,612
Badges
1
Posts
1,056
  • Supposed 'iPhone 8' back panel without Touch ID resurfaces in new leak

    well... imagine my shock...
    I am actually wondering if Apple is trying to introduce a whole bunch of controlled leaks that are fake, just to muddy the water. Because, if you don't have any info about the product, it is just as good as having a lot of info 95% of which is incorrect. Both will create excitement, since it is impossible to know beforehand what the product actually looks like.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.

    While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop. 

    Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree. 

    Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.

    There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case.  More fun to come. 
    Amazon is first in my Google search
    See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.

    Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
    The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free?  Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge?  Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there 
    No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.

    If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
    Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results. 

    This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.

    Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.

    This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.

    Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.

    Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).

    It seems to be a pattern with Google.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?
    williamlondon
  • EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

    MisterKit said:
    Nice to see a system that favors the people and not corporations.
    A favor? It is about as much of a favor as Chavez did to his people.
    tallest skilwilliamlondon
  • EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

    foggyhill said:
    You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.
           Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage?
    What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair.
    And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.
    Read up on monopolies and then comment. I don't want to have to deal with that level of ignorance.
    Exactly, buddy! Read up on that. Google does not have a monopoly on search engines, by definition. They only happened to have a good one through a lot of work. So, what was your point? What was that about ignorance?
    williamlondon
  • EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.

    While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop. 

    Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree. 

    Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.

    There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case.  More fun to come. 
    Amazon is first in my Google search
    See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.

    Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
    The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free?  Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge?  Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there 
    No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.

    If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
    monopoly on what? On search? What does it even mean? It is a f-g product that you CHOSE to use. You don't die, if you choose not to use Google.
    williamlondonbshank